So was at court today in Orillia for a friend, and I had submitted a couple notice of motion a couple weeks ago that I wanted to deal with before arraignment. I met with prosecutor before hand, and it went something like this:

Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law?"Me: "What do you mean?"Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law for your motion?"Me: "All the case law is quoted in the motion that I submitted already."Prosecutor: "Those are only snippets from the case law. You need to provide three full copies of each case law that you are using."Me: "Where does it say that?"Prosecutor: "It's the law!"Me: "Which law would that be, so I can look it up?"Prosecutor: "I am not going to argue with you. Go have a seat."Me: "Ok."

Then later when was called up before the JP, we set a new date to hear my motions and a new trial date for after that, and I asked the JP:

Me: "Just one more question... Earlier when I spoke with the prosecutor, she told me that I had to submit three full copies of all the case laws that I have mentioned in my motions and when I asked her why she said 'it's the law' but then would not tell me what the law was. Is there a specific law stating that I have to do that?"JP to Me: "Not that I am aware of."Prosecutor: "Well it's procedure. I don't have it with me, but it's procedure that you need to provide a full copy of each case law as the other side is not required to provide their own copy."JP to Prosecutor: "Well I am still not sure I know what you are talking about."Me: "Okay well, I will just go ahead and get all the copies and bring them to the motions hearing anyways, so there is one less thing to argue about."

So my question is, does anybody know what law or procedure requires you to provide full copies of case laws for motions?

It is common practice. A good friend of mine went to argue a ticket and had some good case law on his side but didn't bring copies. The justice said that without copies he wouldn't consider it and that he would have won has he provided said copies.

_________________Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !

1 copy for JP, 1 copy for prosecutor, 1 copy for accused...they need the full print out of the case law so it may be read in its entirety. Only using small portions of the cases law does not give the court a complete picture.

Why can't they just read it online like everyone else? It is public knowledge, not evidence. Sounds like the prosecutor just wants you to waste more of your time and money. If I was a JP I would never trust printed case law from self represented people anyway considering how easy it would be to change the text.

Edit: I know prosecutors like to cite case law in their motions and letters also. Did the prosecutor provide you and the JP with a copy of every case she referenced?

Why can't they just read it online like everyone else? It is public knowledge, not evidence. Sounds like the prosecutor just wants you to waste more of your time and money. If I was a JP I would never trust printed case law from self represented people anyway considering how easy it would be to change the text.

Edit: I know prosecutors like to cite case law in their motions and letters also. Did the prosecutor provide you and the JP with a copy of every case she referenced?

Don't blame the prosecutor.....that's the court's requirement. That's like blaming the police for a speed limit ion a certain road.

_________________Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !

Why can't they just read it online like everyone else? It is public knowledge, not evidence. Sounds like the prosecutor just wants you to waste more of your time and money. If I was a JP I would never trust printed case law from self represented people anyway considering how easy it would be to change the text.

Edit: I know prosecutors like to cite case law in their motions and letters also. Did the prosecutor provide you and the JP with a copy of every case she referenced?

Don't blame the prosecutor.....that's the court's requirement. That's like blaming the police for a speed limit ion a certain road.

If the JP doesn't even know about it then I would say it isn't the court's requirement. It if was then every speeding trial (from reduced tickets) would require the prosecutor to print a stack of R v. Winlow. Could you imagine the huge amounts of paper they would have to cart into the courtroom on top of what they already do?

It would be a great appeal point if a JP denied hearing a motion because you did not have full copies of all the case law. Unless of course there is a law/rule/procedure somewhere that they can point to.

Anyways, I really have no problem providing copies, but if you are going to tell me "its the law" then I want to see it myself!

If you want to see it yourself, research it yourself...you cannot go into court and expect the prosecutor or the JP to educate you...when it is time for the trial, it is time for the trial, they are not going to waste valuable court time to educate the uneducated...the courts may assist an unrepresented person a little but that will only be in a minor assistance role...if the court asks for something and you don't have it, expect to lose...if you are lucky enough to have it appealed, then you must be ready for court at that level...jsherk, please note: stated in R. v. Tait [2001] O.J. No. 2948 substance needs to prevail over form, purpose over procedure and merit over technicalities. “We’re not here to trap somebody or to deal with the matter on a procedural technicality that amounts as to what other courts have indicated, amounts to nothing more than pettifoggery… The purpose of the [PO] act is ‘Let’s forget about the nonsense and get down to the meat of the case and have a decision made.’ That’s what the Provincial Offences Act legislation is all about.” There are people who have no interest in going to trial on the substance of the matter. These people search for, and manufacture defences, again, with nothing to do with the substance of the charge...I am all for a great legal argument at trial, I am all for peoples right to a fair trial but the rest of the *EDIT* that goes on is just painful

Let's just say for the sake of argument that in the end it is not a statutory requirement for you to have 3 copies...one of the big things the courts like is that all parties get along and act in a pleasant manner...would it hurt you, or anyone else to have the 3 copies? the monetary loss to you would be minimal and it would help things move along more smoothly...the case laws usually produced in p.o.a. court is small, just bang of 3 copies and be done...Your Worship, I would like to refer you to the R. v Winlow case, here are three copies, one for your Worship and one for my friend or Mr. Smith or whomever...you look good having the 3 copies and the case moves on smoothly, it's quite simple...

I did...but then you kept on stating: "So maybe I was not clear before, but I certainly can not find anything that tells me I need to have three copies of all the case laws. Anybody know where it says we must or even should do this?" Which leads me to believe you were not going to give in so easily...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum